I’d say there are no rules at this point.
Are Australian and Canadian Hornets planned for the US?
No, I mean as in why is the FGR.2 not a naval plane while the FG.1 counts as one. They both are carrier capable, just one of them wasn’t operated by the navy.
FGR.2 was modified such that it could not be used on carriers IIRC.
What would be the point though?
12.3 and 12.7 would be identical
American F/A-18C Late would still be better because it has GE-402 engines
AFAIK, FGR.2 was RAF exclusive variant
FG.1 had telescopic front gear specifically for shorter RN carrier decks
In that case the commonwealth Hornets arent naval planes.
Tbc
1 Like
Regarding the implementation of the Australian Mirage.
I would rather the BOL that an Aussie F/A-18A provides over the 402s
1 Like
between 12:00 UTC and 15:00 UTC, last few streams were 13:00 UTC (with 1 12:00)
Sorry, missed my opportunity to call the Hornet a mediocre at best plane
It’s a rat. Play it like one
BOL is nice but the Cs get double the CMs of the As anyway, I find it’s more than enough
I think the russian one starts in 1 hour
Can never have too many
More is always better :)
then it’ll fit really well into the UK tree, especially the naval line
An obese rat tbh
True, they are so good at being naval planes that their operators didn’t use them as naval planes
Sweden air winning for once in it’s existence as the MLU 2 has both the better -402 engines and BOL.
1 Like